All children can testify under Indian law ………Kartikeya | TNN
Mumbai: Children, no matter how young, are not barred from giving evidence in court in the Indian legal system. In fact, there have been cases where courts have considered evidence given by a child as young as five to send a murderer to jail for life.
Under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, every person is competent as a witness unless the court has reason to believe that s/he may not be in a position to understand questions put to him/her or be capable of giving reasonable answers. In the case of children, the courts are also aware that they can easily be tutored and thus made puppets in the hands of elders.
The law does not fix any particular age for when a child becomes competent as a witness or for when s/he can be presumed to have attained the requisite degree of intelligence or knowledge to be considered a reliable witness. Thus, to determine the competency of a child as a witness, judges often give him/her a simple test before proceeding with the matter.
The judge puts certain preliminary questions before the child which have no connection with the case. They are usually simple queries, like asking the child for his fathers name, place of residence, subjects he studies in school and so on.
Judges closely observe the demeanour of the child and the manner in which he answers the preliminary questions, explained an advocate. If satisfied that s/he is capable of understanding court proceedings and behaving in a rational manner, the court proceeds with recording formal evidence in the case.
Every effort is made to keep the child witness comfortable and relaxed. Judges also protect child witnesses from any form of harsh cross-examination by the defence. They step in whenever they feel that the child is being bullied or browbeaten and tell the advocate to refrain from that tone or manner of cross-examination.
The Supreme Court, in the case of Jarina Khatun vs State of Assam, said in 1992 that the trial court is the best judge to decide the competency of a child witness, because the child appears before that court. Therefore, the judge has an opportunity to see him/her, notice the demeanour, record evidence and thereafter, on scrutiny, accept the testimony. In another case, Tahal Singh vs State of Punjab, the Supreme Court observed in 1979, In our country, particularly in rural areas, it is difficult to think of a 13-yearold as a child. A vast majority of boys around that age go to fields to work. They are certainly capable of understanding the significance of the oath and necessity to speak the truth.
11-year-olds testimony helped nail robbers
ASessions Court in September convicted two of the three robbers who broke into comedian Raju Shrivastavs house in May 2007. The court relied on evidence given by Srivastavs 11-year-old daughter, Antara, who had played a major role in foliling the robbery.
11-year-olds testimony helped nail robbers
ASessions Court in September convicted two of the three robbers who broke into comedian Raju Shrivastavs house in May 2007. The court relied on evidence given by Srivastavs 11-year-old daughter, Antara, who had played a major role in foliling the robbery.
The court examined a total of 18 witnesses including Antara during the trial. She told the judge what had happened on the day of the incident and how she had screamed for help. While Zulfiqar Choudhary was sentenced to seven years imprisonment, the other accused, Raja Jamil Sayyed, got a year in jail.
Antara even won the National Award for Bravery for courage shown during the robbery attempt. TNN